I hope their comment of touch spot focus is true as after a year with my FDR-AX1 focus is the issue in 4K. That with a 1/2.3 sensor, effectively 1/3", with a larger sensor it will be more difficult. A large monitor is also a must so I expect users will need a Shogun or BM Video Assist too. I use a 7" MustHD but still find auto focus gets it better !!! My interest is in the low light performance for theatre use. I have the FDR-AX100 too and it with its 1" sensor is not quite as good in low light as my NX30U and almost 2 stops slower than my NX5U currently my main camera. So the extra pixels for 4K make quite a difference to performance.
NEW more detailed info on the DVX200 (4/24/2015)
- Thread starter atroa
- Start date
Bassman2003
Veteran
Speaking of focus, one large benefit of having a fixed lens is the readout of your focus distance which can be very helpful for relation-based focusing. Once you know what a certain point is you can watch the numbers if needed.
That is if you believe the numbers. I cannot trust the numbers on either my NX5U or the AX1. They both say something different when focused on the same thing right next to one another !!!! They have the same 20x zoom. As a guide to get back to the same area they are not bad but to actually use questionable.
joe 1008
Veteran
Thank you, Ron. In the meantime I did a little search and found something:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?324195-Sony-FDR-AX100-vs-GH4-shoot-out/page2
Seems there is not much of a difference - but I could ony watch the clips on an iPad. Of course the GH4 wins with a faster lens. I really do hope the DVX200 being one stop faster than the GH4 as its lens is comparable to the AX100's one (also f2.8-4.5). That way it could equal and even beat the GH4 with the f2.8 12-35 and 35-100 zooms and of course the AX100.
Last edited:
Yes, correct, as they are also sensors primarily designed for stills use and their native aspect ratios are also squarer than 16:9. Real point is that you can't sensibly compare total sensor areas unless they're the same aspect ratio - for stills sensors you have to think about the USED area for video to make a sensible comparison with native 16:9 sensors.
Hmmm, good point and may open up a whole new can of worms. What you say is quite true, and using the centre 8.8Mpx is quite a reasonable way to derive the 4K output - but it does indeed add an extra crop.DLD said:
To put some figures to it, a full (4:3) 4/3 sensor measures 17.3x13mm. The area used in 4K mode is about 14.4x8.1mm (at least for 3840x2180 QuadHD) - about half the area of the full sensor.
But compare that with a 1" camera. The RX10 is 13.2x8.8mm in stills mode, but needs less of a crop to get 16:9 as it's 3:2 native - not 4:3. The used area for 16:9 is then 13.2x7.4mm - so not that much different to that of the GH4 in 4K mode.......
So it would be very, very useful to know exactly how the DVX200 is deriving it's 4K.....? Is it from a centre 8.8 Mp crop of the whole sensor as the GH4 does - effectively using half of the total area? Nothing wrong with that - quite the opposite as regards likely image quality - but any potential buyer should be aware that for dof etc purposes they are getting something akin to would be expected from a 1" chip.
joe 1008
Veteran
The specs are showing something like a 1,06 crop in 4K, indicating a lower pixel count and therefore better low light performance and slightly better control of DOF. That's why I am optimistic about the f2.8-4,5 lens performance.
Silenkiller
Active member
How is this going to be in low light though? Thats the million dollar Q for me.
Have you got a pointer to those specs?
It would seem to me most likely that if 4/3, it's again most likely to be a 16Mp sensor - either exactly as in the GH4, or one intended for the "GH5"? Reasoning is that sensor design is expensive. It makes sense to lever economies of scale where possible, so if you want a 4/3 chip, try to use one already developed. A 8Mp, 16:9, purpose designed 4/3 chip would give optimum results, but would it be worth developing such for this market?
That said there are two ways it could then derive 4K.
Do as the GH4 and use the centre 8Mp, the central 3840x2160 section. Makes for high quality with relatively easy reading/processing.
Read a 16:9 crop of the sensor (about 12Mp), deBayer and downconvert. That would have the advantage of using more of the sensor (so less cropping) but involve more difficult processing.
The question is which?
philiplipetz
Veteran
Panasonic has said that it is a "native resolution" 4k sensor that is reading the pixels directly so it has bigger pixels but no ability to get true 4:2:2 4k.
Last edited:
So, it's an 8.8 MPX 16:9 MFT sensor developed specifically for this camera?
philiplipetz
Veteran
Essentially. It may or may not be cine 4k but it is certainly quad 4k.
Wesley Byram
Well-known member
You may be right, but something that seems a bit odd is if it is a "native resolution 4k sensor," then why does it need to crop the sensor for 4k recording, but not 1080p? The released specs show that the field-of-view is slightly wider for HD than 4K. That would hint at a sensor with higher native resolution than 4k, unless I'm missing something.
philiplipetz
Veteran
Panasonic has said that the active area is native resolution but that the sensor has extra pixels for use in HD image stabilization.
Last edited:
I really disagree on this. I shoot documentaries and therefore I need a 422 codec in order to fulfill European and worldwide TV standards. 422 simply is the the ticket to the pro league and to pro sales. The DVX 200 has a nice and seducing form factor - therefore I'd really like to shoot with that kind of cam if it recorded 10Bit 422 internally, even though 12 stops of DR is not quite up to date anymore and makes you less flexible in some documentary situations compared to working with the 14 or even 15 stops of DR provided by Sony and Canon.
The good thing about the all-in-one design of the DVX200 is that you can literally take it out of the bag and shoot - which means that you'll be able to react really fast. Same thing with the FS7, if you have a lens on it which fits the situation. Any external recorder would make the DVX200 more clunky than a FS7 though - just imagine you'd have to screw it onto the DVX200 and check the connections first every time you'll take it out of the bag. So why should I deal with that kind of hazzle? Its easier to think of the right lens for the FS7 in advance IMHO than to deal with a bulky second device on top of the DVX200 which might even not record for multiple reasons when you count on it.
The price difference of a DVX200 + external recorder compared to a FS7 is not such a big deal and with the FS7 in mind you'll get a real 14 stops 10Bit 422 device now and not just in september.
Sorry Panasonic - thats why I'll be going with the FS7 soon even though you had seriously caught my interest with the seducing design of the DVX200.
joe 1008
Veteran
Go to the very beginning of this thread. The Panasonic spec list says that the lens at the wide end is 28mm in FHD and 29,5 in 4K. That's where I drew my conclusions from.
joe 1008
Veteran
But then - shouldn't the HD image be the cropped one and not the 4K image? Otherwise the lens isn't 28mm wide in FHD as Panasonic claims - you will only get a stabilized image with a 29,5mm FOV.
It is even more puzzling as HD is 28, 4K24P is 29.5 and UHD60P is 37.2. That is not very wide for the frame rate I want to use. The HCX1000 and the Sony AX100 have a Clear Image zoom that allows a cropping in to the sensor. For the AX100 it results in a 24x zoom at HD and 18x at UHD. No mention of this for the DVX200 which may indicate less pixels on the sensor. It likely means that for image stabilization there is plenty of room for HD image but less as the image size and/or frame rate increase.
Bassman2003
Veteran
NEEL,
Just to clarify, do you need the 10bit 4:2:2 in 4k or HD?
Just to clarify, do you need the 10bit 4:2:2 in 4k or HD?